Wednesday, June 24, 2009

I was going to post about my man Casanova Mark tonight, but that would have been too easy.

Nope, instead I want to talk about a man who is so repulsive and disgusting to me, that after this post, I promise you I will be taking a shower.

Some sister must have really done Clarence wrong back in the day, because that Negro seriously hates his people. I bet he vowed to get the entire Negro race back for those black folks who dissed him in his early life.

Honestly, how could Uncle Clarence be the only one of the Supremes to vote against not scrapping a certain provision of the Voting Rights Act? (He even went against his closet lover, Antonin Scalia, on this one) A provision which pretty much insured that certain states would not be messing with the civil rights of minority voters? Has this Negro taken leave of his senses? Does he just do this kind of shit to get attention? Folks, believe me, in spite of what some folks in certain states would have you believe, that provision is still needed today. Those pesky little literacy tests could come back faster than you can say Jig Clarence, Jig.

It has gotten so embarrassing that even white folks are making fun of his dumb ass.

And if you think I am kidding about Uncle Clarence, read Ofari Hutchinson's article again; the man (Clarence) does have some serious pay back issues. I mean it is just not healthy.

But is this the way to do it? How could anyone want to be remembered this way; as a clown and a lightweight among his peers and a pariah within his own race, not to mention his family? Well, if you are slave catcher extraordinaire, Clarence Thomas, I guess all of this doesn't really matter, it's all about preserving his legacy as A-merry-ca's number one "Tom".

"Thomas's mean-spirited and vindictive views and legal opinions on the death penalty, age and gender bias, first amendment, prisoner rights and affirmative action cases were well known by the time he hit the court in 1991. It can hardly be said that Thomas latched on to judicial conservatism solely to curry favor with white conservatives to snatch a seat on the high court. He believes what he says and writes even when others don't and can't. But even if he didn't he'd still say and write the ridiculous thingach! s [sp] he does that masquerade as dissenting legal opinions. He's simply fulfilling his vow of payback."

Rajen Persaud argues in his book "Why Black men Love White Women", that Seff Hate like Anorexia, Obesity and Alcoholism should be recognized as a disease. Its a good point.Clarence's behavior needs to be classified as evidence of one afflicted.

"Some sister must have really done Clarence wrong back in the day, because that Negro seriously hates his people. I bet he vowed to get the entire Negro race back for those black folks who dissed him in his early life...."

Well that answers to the very root of what makes a black conservative, FN.

Raceing Justice, Engendering Power: Essays on Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas, and the Construction of Social Reality edited by Toni Morrison

Speaking Truth to Power by Anita Hill

We see that you slandered your working poor sister as a “welfare queen”. We see that you neglected the female elder kin, whom she quit working to care for, while you chased white coeds at Yale. We see a man who is an intimate friend of Rush Limbaugh. We look at you and we see a Supreme Nigger and a legendary neocon slave.

You have nerve talking about Tom when you posted at a site that CALLS for the death of the President. SugarNSpice blog remember.You even posted a you tube of J David Manning, a Tom that would make Jesse Lee Peterson cry.You posted a few days ago at a post titled "Have Whites Lost America?" You and Sugar posted AGAINST whites losing America.

~Strict construction ism; following the original intent of the founding fathers.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, n'em, did not want you Negroes to vote.

Clarence, you are too, too dark to have been one of GW's or TJ's, or et alia, house Negroes; Clarence, I do not know exactly where you would have fit in. Mayhap, as scent bait, trainin-nin the hounds to hunt escaped slaves.`

old white guy, he voted FOR scrapping the provision (I think it's article five) which allowed the feds to moniter certain states. 8-1 and he was the lone dissenter. *shaking head*. There should have been the word "not" in the post which I have since inserted. [Hey, it was late, I didn't have time to totally proof read that bad boy]

"Wow, Clarence Thomas went against Antonin Scalia. That says a lot about Clarence Thomas and his position regarding Blacks and other minorities. Thomas NEVER against Scalia."

STOP BLAMING BLACK WOMEN. Goddamn it!!!! What the EFF is wrong with YOU??! How is blaming a woman -- or proffering speculative blame of a woman -- FIELD Negro behavior??! On this score, Thomas is not your cousin, his is your brother. Twin. IDENTICAL. You both are loathsome.

After all of these years of you and other Black Quasi-Socialist Progressive-Fundamentalist Racism Chasers doing the job of the White Liberal Snarling Foxes and attacking Thomas as NOT being intellectually capable of holding his own arguments or writing his own paper - YOU HAVE RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU an opinion of his that stands alone as he is the 1 in the "8 to 1" ruling.

HE stood on principle.

He asked the others to rule NOT on the narrow issue that was in front of them (The Texas Utilities Commission" lawsuit - which the majority agreed that this newly drawn district cannot be held liable for sins of the past that THEY had nothing to do with).

Clarence Thomas challenged the court to consider the entire Voting Rights Act and render an opinion on it.

HOW IRONIC that the very same people who argue that CRACK SENTENCING at a time when the threat from Crack upon inner city communities are needed to be changed as we have achieve a new level of understanding in how to contain it - and the negative impact on families for the incarceration of their loved ones.....THESE are the main people who wish there to be no time limit upon the sanctions placed upon select districts per Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Ironically a supporter of the VRA stated that "most of the districts that require review by the Justice Department DIDN'T VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA, thus proving that they have not CHANGED".

It is clear that the biggest beneficiary for the Voting Rights Act has been THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, not THE BLACK COMMUNITY!!

The racially gerrymandered districts have created solid Democratic voting blocks where Black people live in our highest concentrations. Whereas we as Black people ORIGINALLY got into political activism so that:

* Our schools could improve* The safety within our community could be improved* The Economic opportunity within our community could be improved* The health of our people could be improved

TO-DAMNED-DAY!!! With the Democratic Party DOMINATING EVERY SINGLE BLACK MAJORITY DISTRICT IN AMERICA......these goals STILL have not bee achieved yet those who CONTROL EVERY SINGLE SEAT IN THE INSTITUTIONS THAT RUN THESE PLACES have little to fear on election day.

Ironcially in the Atlanta area - Fulton County Georgia got hit with 12 ELECTION DAY VIOLATIONS in 2008 yet these were not seen as "racist threats" to voting in this Democratic Controlled county. This despite having several people's votes compromised.

I am pleased that the Supreme Court ruled that these places should be allowed to OPT OUT of the sanctions.

The days of using the law for the political advantage of the Racism Chasers is coming to an end. About 6 years ago Ginsberg joined with O'Conner and ruled that they could not see Affirmative Action being legally permissible in 25 more years.

YET despite THIS NEWS and the news that Social Security will lose its positive balance in 2035 - Grievance Pushes such as Filled Negro have done NOTHING to move his people forward. They are too busy profiting off of sentiments about the PAST.

Thank you Brother Justice Clarence Thomas for believing that BLACK PEOPLE ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW, regardless of how much our own people attack him for remaining consistent.

They prefer Judge Sotomayor who upon seeing Black firefighters in New Haven with NECK BRACES on as they walked into the courtroom she agreed to see them as INFERIOR to the White men who took an equal test. As long as the Black man is willing to hunch his back if it means that he will receive some entitlement for doing so - Sotomayor and other judges will gladly play the game.

Does it bother you that 95% of your posters HAVE NEVER EVEN READ the document by Thomas yet they pepper him with attacks?

They are comfortable that the White Snarling Foxes call this Black man "non-intellectual" and YOU all are happy to lodge the attacks on their behalf since THEY would be called "racists" if they said about this worthy man what YOU all on AfroSpear have said about him.

IF ONLY I could see a rebuttal on what he wrote then your blog would be worth more than an online version of "The Source" magazine to me.

You all need to stop getting on Field about blaming black women. It is clear someone male or female hurt this man. Yeah it could have been his father or a close male relative that drove this fool to hate himself but it also could have been his mother, his first love or close relative. It is clear this man hates race and himself. I sort of feel sorry for him. Seriously if you look at Boondocks doesn’t Clarence Thomas remind you of Uncle Ruckus

Is it possible that Clarence Thomas voted for scrapping the Voting Rights Act because he finds it offensive to black people?

I for one find it offensive that my right to vote, in this day and age, is contingent on some dame Voting Rights Act. I am a fucking American! My right to vote is an inalienable one and not subject to some fucking Voting Rights Act.

Before some one goes apoplectic, let me say I understand why the Voting Rights Act was enacted and the era in which it was enacted.

You don't believe in certain areas of the United States today, such as Ohio and Florida, that were there no repercussions they would not at least attempt to intimidate black and latino voters or supress the minority vote?

It's just like Affirmative Action.

Conservatives swear that if there were no wide nets or outreach efforts, race would play no part in hiring and every applicant would be judged on objective criteria.

Yet they have no historical template on which to base that assumption.

I think that there are SCORES of black people who think that they CAN predict which issues that all other blacks will support.

They think they can predict these things because they believe that we are all a monolithic and that our actions in our "lofty" positions will support all of the people whose skin color we share.

In other words, they think that black unity is alive and well.

{humming and making the coffee}

While the coffee is brewing and folks are smelling it and waking up from the slumber of denial and delusion....please allow me to toss in a little bit of salt.

1. Just because Clarence is a black man DOES NOT mean that he is obligated to represent the interests of black people in the decisions that he makes in his capacity as Justice.

He was not elected to his position by black people but yet, black people THINK that he owes them? That's interesting.

2. The rule "don't forget where you've come from!" really doesn't apply here since THAT isn't a "black rule" that all black people feel any need to adhere to. They feel ENTITLED to forget the blacks that they don't engage with or feel any solidarity with.

3. Memo to the blacks in America:Ummm....if "y'all" haven't noticed by now, Clarence doesn't feel he owes you a darn thing!

I continue to watch black people become hysterical whenever Clarence doesn't SHOW that he's interested in having the affections of black people.

Ummm... how many years will it take for these blacks to swallow that bitter bill that Clarence is just NOT INTERESTED in being popular with blacks?

I believe that part of the reason why there is so much hostility directed at Clarence.... is because the hostility is rooted in this RIDICULOUS assumption that because he is black that he will use (or SHOULD USE the position that white people gave him to defend anything and everything that protects black people.

I say that it is a ridiculous assumption because black unity, my friend IS DEAD and has been dead a mighty loooong time. The corpse of black unity is beyond decomposition. Those who THINK it is alive are encountering a ghost.

I wrote a post, "The Eulogy of Black Unity" a month ago because I didn't feel we had given a proper burial to Black Unity.

Clarence doesn't owe blacks anything. And they don't owe him support.

When black people receive high profile positions, suddenly, there is some ridiculous blanket assumption among many blacks that the person will be acting as an ALLY of blacks. Will we ever banish the notion?

Is there koolaid that we can give to the black masses that will stop these hallucinations?

No friend, all blacks who have high profile positions WILL NOT act as allies for black people. The sooner our people come to grips with this, the sooner they can wipe the foam from their mouths and stop nashing their teeth.

Yes black people, there really ARE blacks in power who do not care one wit about you. Okaaaaaay? No, every black in power is not your ally, protector or crusader.

Field,I think one of the "payback" angles on this story is that Thomas is paying back those who put him on the bench. The VRA has been a thorn in the side of the old white guard for over 40 years, so Ol' Clarance tried to help them out.

It is instructive that the longest mixed CASE rant thus far comes from a commenter in Georgia. If ever a state was in need of the VRA, it is GA.

LOL...Nobody hates on the N-words worse than another N-word....:) But seems y'all be hatin on my Man Clarence the worst... I think y'all just don't like him cause he's the color of a dark Espresso and his hairs kinkier than a Perez Hilton/Barny Frank/R Kelly menage' a twat... Whatevea happened to Anita Hill anyway....

That blacks shouldn't be concerned about Justice Slappy gleefully performning the role of new millenium slave catcher?

Why not stick to what I HAVE said instead of "INVENTING" comments that were not in my post?

Just because Clarence doesn't care about the interests of ALL blacks doesn't make him a "slave catcher". From what I have seen of his decisions as Justice, he's not out catching any slaves in his role as Justice to hand over to white massas....oh but perhaps I have missed a news story or two on him.

I find it interesting that there are black people who feel that ANY black person who is in a high profile position and does not act as an ALLY of black people hates being black.

Ummmm... maybe he has no problems with being black and simply feels NO OBLIGATION to appease blacks...

BD-"That, Field, is where we've got ol' Thomas all wrong. He's not black!

He's a white man in blackface."

Yes. That is the truth. But he is not just ANY white man in blackface. He is a white man in blackface who abhors black people. It is a restless state of mind and heart that is bothered by the very 'existence' of Black Americans. There ARE such people in black skin, although few in number.

Unfortunately, Clarence Thomas is at a level of government where his vote will always be a threat to the rights of Blacks.A+

Let's hope soon- the black man will finally remove his head from the white man's backside. For if he does, he finally see the world through his own eyes- instead of the 400 years of *#!* that he's grown use to.

You don't believe in certain areas of the United States today, such as Ohio and Florida, that were there no repercussions they would not at least attempt to intimidate black and latino voters or supress the minority vote?

It's just like Affirmative Action.

Conservatives swear that if there were no wide nets or outreach efforts, race would play no part in hiring and every applicant would be judged on objective criteria.

Yet they have no historical template on which to base that assumption.

Sure there are places that would attempt to suppress the minority vote. There is a mechanism to prevent such behavior-- the U.S. Constitution. Although voting is not a constitutional right, the liberty is. And abridging one's right to vote can be considered abridging one's right to liberty.

In my opinion, Affirmative Action is a bit more tricky than the Voting Rights Act. Why do we need a Voting Rights Act to insure something that is inalienable by virtue of citizenship?

On the other hand, Affirmative Action is needed because it is rare that promotions, hiring, etc is based on objective criteria. Most of the criteria is subject (i.e., right personality, right color, right gender, which is usually good ol boy, white and male respectively). Eventually, AA will not be needed anymore. The question is when. Nobody knows. Perhaps 2364 is year to end it. 400 years from the the Civil Rights Act to compensate for 400 years of bondage. And that's being conservative given the fact that it take longer to mend something that has been broken.

It's sad to think that someone who has done so little for civil rights (Clarence Thomas) replaced someone (Thurgood Marshall) who did so much for civil rights. To this day, Thomas continues to make almost every effort to turn back the clock on the gains made in civil rights.

i hate it when anyone pretends that one bad experience with a black woman/black people is a valid reason to date whites exclusively as clarence...

those same euro black people, if they ever have a bad experience with a white female or white persons, they will just find superior whites to date

so why can they just not find superior blacks too?

Why is it that when black love fails, interracial love is presumed to be medicinal or superior? Yet, when interracial love fails, individualism is lauded as a reason to quickly seek a better white person? It is not racist to love yourself and your own race. It is not racist to want your children and grandchildren to look as you did when you were a child. It is not racist to want to see your own reflection in your lover’s face. It is human to love a person who looks like you or your parents.

Why is interracial love so often restricted to black and white unions? How many other beautiful races of persons are on the earth? Why does the interracial propaganda that bombards us never seem to promote other racial mixes as adamantly and expressly as it does black and white unions? White supremacy rules all mixed equations. Thus, whiteness must always be in the mix.

Race is complex. Racism intensifies that complexity. Mixed race persons should see their reflections in many races. Yet, even they most often seek only the whitest lovers they can find. Because even their exotic blood is no shield from mundane white supremacy.

@A+: "Yes. That is the truth. But he is not just ANY white man in blackface. He is a white man in blackface who abhors black people...."

You're a keen observer, A+. I thought that my remark had slipped through because of its brevity: I made it without elaboration.

You're right, of course, the abhorrence of which you refer being implied in my statement: What black man would go to such lengths to transform himself so completely, if he didn't first abhor that which he is?

Rather than using his position of power to ameliorate conditions for blacks, he is using his transformation to aggravate those conditions, thereby manifesting again the motive behind the transformation in the first place.

He's acting out the worse of whiteness, because that "worse" is what prompted him to undergo the transformation in the beginning--for if most whites had treated blacks with dignity and respect, ol' Clarence would have remained black.

The justification for the transformation wouldn't have existed.

Clarence became the worse of that he saw in whites--because in his mind he accepted the righteousness of their cause--and, after the transformation, became a crusader on their behalf, and their most ardent supporter.

Clarence is a Kafkaesque character. I suspect that the transformation took place years ago, but he's still stuck in that time warp where he needs to justify the transformation, not realizing the irony of what he's done, and that white acceptance of blacks have undergone a partial transformation of its own, rendering Clarence transformation as useless as two heads on a snake.

Whoa! I am late to the discussion but how Justice Thomas voted and why has been taken wayyy out of context. The voting rights act is totally unConstitutional and represents a time where the heavy hand of federal government was used to equalize the playing field. I daresay that it is not necessary any more at all. We have a Black President. There aren't enough Blacks in the country that could have elected him. He was elected by majority white people.

How can you advocate keeping a law that infringes upon states rights and claim racial animus exists to the extent that the voting rights act is still needed and then talk about our BLACK President in the same sentence?

There is serious cognitive disconnect here. The truth is, Justice Thomas is completely consistent in his rulings across the board. Last month, he agreed with the liberals that federal laws should not preempt state consumer protection laws. I am sure most of you would agree he ruled correctly here his justification was the same as the one he used in his dissent above.

He is for medical marijuana use by those who have doctors notes and doesn't believe that Congress should have a right to regulate its commerce, again a position based upon weak federal government.

FN: Rather than shooting off at the mouth, why not put it into context from legal perspective?

Clarence Thomas strikes me as a study in the abnormal psychology of oppression, in which the victim comes to identify with the victimizers. Some of his opinions, especially in the realm of prisoner rights, have been damn close to medieval.

Are you just a provocateur, or do you really believe all you've said here:

Although I agree with your position selectively, your conclusions and the tone you strike are all wrong.

I wish I had the time to respond substantively, but, alas, time won't allow it.

Of course, you're seeing the world through your own unique prism, but from mine, I've never seen blacks more united.

We voted in overwhelming numbers(to the chagrin of many whites) for a black candidate for president.

Sure, you can counter this in many ways, but the fact still bears out that blacks preferred, now President Obama, to scores of other candidates on the right or the left.

There's solidarity of mind that you have overlooked, as well: most blacks (at least those that I've encounter in my daily walk, and have talked with here on this blog) are united in seeing justice prevail for blacks, and their condition bettered.

Don't bury black unity just yet:

"...black unity, my friend IS DEAD and has been dead a mighty loooong time. The corpse of black unity is beyond decomposition. Those who THINK it is alive are encountering a ghost."

There's still life in what you see as a corpse, and to bury that which is still breathing is to subject it to a miserable, painful, and premature death.

I think it goes way beyond Stockholm Syndrome, which applies to temporary situations. Thomas grew up dirt poor, on the bottom of the heap, in a group of people treated like shit in a place where they were treated especially shitty.

This is multi-generational oppression talking, and it defined the man's world view. It's as if he has said, "I made it through that hell, so anyone else ought to be able to make it through their hell too. And maybe hell is a character building experience, so on second thought let's be SURE to put everyone through some hell."

Frankly, I think what ol' Clarence could use is some kinky sex. Instead of flogging people with his Supreme Court opinions, go buy a flogger and have at it. I'm not sure whether he'd be on top or on the bottom, but either way I think he'd one guy who'd really benefit by getting his yah-yahs out in some place other than on the job.

grinder said... Frankly, I think what ol' Clarence could use is some kinky sex. Instead of flogging people with his Supreme Court opinions, go buy a flogger and have at it. I'm not sure whether he'd be on top or on the bottom, but either way I think he'd one guy who'd really benefit by getting his yah-yahs out in some place other than on the job.

"It is not racist to love yourself and your own race. It is not racist to want your children and grandchildren to look as you did when you were a child. It is not racist to want to see your own reflection in your lover’s face. It is human to love a person who looks like you or your parents."

The irony in the above? A White Supremacist or someone close to that bent can very well use that same argument, and have the whole "racism" argument disarmed to a degree. In other words, we Blacks end up looking hypocritical.

"How can you advocate keeping a law that infringes upon states rights and claim racial animus exists to the extent that the voting rights act is still needed and then talk about our BLACK President in the same sentence?"

So how do we insure that once these and other issues go back solely to the states that the current racial majority does not once again enact laws that infringe upon the rights of racial minority? With "states rights", you'd still have "separate but 'equal'".

I read somewhere that when Clarence was a little kid, the better-off, lighter-skinned black kids made fun of him for not only being dirt-poor but black as coal.

Since the NAACP types were all lighter-skinned, he's been out to get them ever since. After flirting with Black Nationalism in his younger days (after all, he named his son Jamal Adeen), he decided to become a right-wing Republican to really stick it to those high yellow sons of bitches.

"It is not racist to love yourself and your own race. It is not racist to want your children and grandchildren to look as you did when you were a child. It is not racist to want to see your own reflection in your lover’s face. It is human to love a person who looks like you or your parents."

The irony in the above? A White Supremacist or someone close to that bent can very well use that same argument, and have the whole "racism" argument disarmed to a degree. In other words, we Blacks end up looking hypocritical.

Here's my white man's take on that one: Everyone has the complete right to their personal preferences in their intimate choices, without question or challenge. Period. You can't argue someone into wanting someone or something they don't want.

So, if a black woman wants to date just black guys, fine. If a white guy doesn't go for Asian guys, fine. If a Mexican guy is turned on by black women, great. If a black guy is looking for black women, great.

No one gets to tell other people what to like, or make them feel like shit for liking what they like or for avoiding what they avoid. No one is obligated to run their own personal United Nations, nor are the "traitors" if they go for people of a different race.

A few weeks back you had black folk stealing malt liquor and pork rinds while a store clerk laid dying on the floor now you got black folk shooting and killing 9 year old girl who was outside washing her dog.

Sorry Black Sphere, no offense, but I want Angela. I take it you you are a coservative and I am sure you are a very smart guy, but I have had my fill of battling the guys off the bench. I want a starter. :)

Y'all are all talking about CT as if he's all there... he ain't! I don't think he knows very much about the law... I mean clearly he doesn't if his girlfriend Scalia doesn't even rule w/ his ass! Besides who cares about that evolutionary mistake... even as a Supreme Court Justice he doesn't even matter...

"...Besides who cares about that evolutionary mistake... even as a Supreme Court Justice he doesn't even matter..."

Good point. Let's hope that his votes in the future continue to NOT matter. One thing for sure: he will go down in history as the "n****r in the woodpile" that George H.W. Bush found for window dressing on the SCOUS. He is 'one of a kind'...a dinosaur.

You are entitled to speak your views as YOU CHOOSE and I am entitled to do the same.

Your way doesn't become the RIGHT way and everyone else's the wrong way, however....

How interesting that this comment section is replete with people who are hurling insults and name-calling in reference to Clarence Thomas...people are using profanity in order to convey their views and you're saying MY tone is all wrong?? *LOL*

Hmmmmm....

And even YOU tossed in an insult: "He's a white man in blackface." (This statement is an insult to white people. When someone does something you don't agree with then you bring in a "white man" reference??)

My, how interesting that you think MY approach in this discussion is all wrong....

Your response is a bit aggressive for my mild rebuttal, don't you think?

"Your way doesn't become the RIGHT way and everyone else's the wrong way, however...."

I couldn't agree with you more. Here's what I did say:

"Although I agree with your position selectively, your conclusions and the tone you strike are all wrong."

And I stand by that: Your tone is that of a lecturer hell-bent on showing blacks the errors of their ways--and your conclusion that "black unity" is dead, is a gross generality.

Not only is "black unity" not dead, but it's enjoying a resurgence.

Now, no one told me that I must agree with your position, or that you must agree with mine.

I thought that this was a forum for a variety of opinions, and not the sole venue for the thoughts of one.

Frankly, I thought that you made some good points and I referenced that:

"I agree with your position selectively...."

"How interesting that this comment section is replete with people who are hurling insults and name-calling in reference to Clarence Thomas...people are using profanity in order to convey their views and you're saying MY tone is all wrong??"

I responded to your comments, and not to all commenters. Had I, I would have addressed them en masse.

I still say: Your tone is wrong!

I don't mean it as an insult, to anger you, or to demean.

It was merely an observation. And the other commenters here are welcomed, just as you are, to insult, or not to insult.

We're all independent agents, ultimately responsible for our own actions, and behavior, and none other.

"And even YOU tossed in an insult: "He's a white man in blackface." (This statement is an insult to white people. When someone does something you don't agree with then you bring in a "white man" reference??)"

My remarks may have been taken that way, but it was not my intention to insult, or not to insult. It was merely an observation.

Had you read down thread from my remarks, you would have encountered a fleshing out of what appeared, at first blush, to be an insult.

You may still conclude that it was my aim to insult ol' Clarence, (or whites, as you suggest) but that would be far from the truth.

I have no desire to insult, to threaten, to demean or to diminish.

You see: I'm not threatened.

I render observations with which you may, or may not, agree.

And if you disagree: Well, that's okay by me.

Life is an agreement and a disagreement. Each day is Aye and Nay. It's how we define who we are.

And I'll sign off the way you usually do, but not this time: not to insult, but because I like it, and it fits the occasion:

[quote]I do not understand why Clarence has more than 3/5ths of a vote on the Court. This is not what the founding fathers intended.[/quote]

Jody:

THIS IS WHAT I LIKE ABOUT YOU GIRL!!!

You will to use the same painful, racist subversion against a BLACK MAN THAT YOU DON'T LIKE just as the RACIST WHITES USED AGAINST ANY BLACK PERSON in the past.

Both you and the racist White have the same mission: KEEP BLACK PEOPLE IN THEIR PLACE.

In your instance you wish to keep Black people THINKING THE SAME.

FILLED NEGRO: Scan the responses on this message thread. Make two columns

1) Worthless, Hatefilled Assault Upon Clarence Thomas

2) Well Reasoned Response Focusing Upon THE LAW and Subject At Hand

This is your problem Filled Negro - you would rather bathe in the attacks upon the people that you don't like RATHER THAN shape the conversations and develop your followers to be able to ACTUALLY DEBATE and provide MATERIAL REASONS WHY they disagree with Clarence Thomas.

I HAVE READ THE RULINGS BY THE MAJORITY and THOMAS.

What YOU are not willing to make note of is that the MAJORITY on the Supreme Court warned about the grave problems with the VRA. They simply did not want to rule on the broad question. Clarence Thomas WANTED SUCH A RULING, not a narrow focus on the Texas district.

Ironically you see the removal of Gerrymandered Black Majority districts as a threat to the Congressional Black Caucus.

FOR ME - I look at the underlying DISTRICTS that they come from, the fact that such gerrymandering allows a EXTREME LEFTIST who doesn't have to COMPETE in an election to get into office (See Donna Edwards) and thus I conclude that IRONICALLY these gerrymandered districts are NOT serving the interests of the Black community.

It is ONLY benefiting the Democratic Party and the ideologically bigoted operatives such as yourself.

Ironically middle class blacks are seeking to MOVE OUT OF THESE DISTRICTS into the suburbs. But, as in Chicago, the DISTRICTS are simply REDRAWN, ensnaring them back into the district so that enough Blacks are contained within to insure a victory for the incumbent Democrat who presided over the collapse of the district.

[quote]1. Just because Clarence is a black man DOES NOT mean that he is obligated to represent the interests of black people in the decisions that he makes in his capacity as Justice.[/quote]

Black Woman Blow The Trumpet:

I want to go one better with you!!!

Since you agree that a Black face does not necessarily indicate "Black Interests"..........why is it also possible that "BLACK QUANTITY" ALSO does not represent BLACK INTERESTS?

Does the fact that the PREVAILING SENTIMENT among Black people inherently prove that it is in our BEST INTERESTS?

The core of my argument (and please listen Jody) is that the BLACK BEST INTEREST is PROVEN by the RESULTS that are obtained which are in line with our PERMANENT INTERESTS.

Just because we have a large body of Black people in agreement that some policy set is the pathway toward our best interests, in truth, we might simply have a large group of Black people who are SOLD OUT and thus are out of alignment, despite their POPULARITY.

Clarence Thomas is a favorite Whipping Boy for the Black Quasi-Socialist Progressive-Fundamentalist Racism Chaser. I make the case that today the Black community is suffering from what I call "Justice Thurgood Marshall Justice". This is the judicial theorem in which one is relatively SILENT about the assault of a Black criminal upon another member of the Black community. We only hear from this same person when the CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM makes this Black criminal into a VICTIM via some procedural violation.

Today the Black community is being assaulted by those "10 guilty men who are let go" so that that ONE innocent man is not imprisoned. This is the far greater threat to our community today than ANYTHING that you all can prove that Clarence Thomas has done to harm our interests.

In my view Clarence Thomas has the audacity to see that BLACK PEOPLE ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW and thus TREAT US THAT WAY.

"There aren't enough Blacks in the country that could have elected him. He was elected by majority white people."

That doesn't mean that there aren't still whites who are in a position to deny black people the vote, and will try to do so through one kind of dirty trick or another. Just ask the students at Prairie View A&M.

By the way, the majority of the voters who elected Obama weren't white.

TWEET ME

@fieldnegro

Follow the The Field Negro via e-mail.

DISCLAIMER

*COMMENTS, LINKS, AND CUT AND PASTE ARTICLES, ARE NOT ALL ENDORSED BY THE PUBLISHER.

THIS BLOG claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to its respectful owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

MORE DISCLAIMERS

***The views expressed on this site are the field's and the field's alone. They do not reflect the views of his employer, or any professional or legal organization with which he is affiliated.***

This is a commercial free blog.

Money is nice, but being able to speak my mind is better.

"Real talk: Daniel Rubin has a great little piece up wherein he chats with The Field Negro, the Philly-based blogger who sharply ponders all things black on a daily basis. (Seriously, if you’ve never checked in with TFN, you should: Its author, Wayne Bennett, is a fantastic read who can cut through bullshit like a hot knife through butter, which is a far grosser analogy than I wanted to make, but there you have it.)" ~Philebrity~

"One of the most precocious and hilarious Black political minds on the net. Ive been a long-time fan!" ~Asad Malik~

"..While most of what he writes is tongue-in-cheek, his space is a safe house for candid discussions about race, especially in the comments section, where people of all colors meet."~~Daniel Rubin, "The Philadelphia Inquirer"~~

"To white people, Bennett's musings are like kitchen-table talk from a kitchen they may otherwise never set foot in. To African Americans, he is part of a growing army of black Internet amateurs who have taken up the work once reserved for ministers and professional activists: the work of setting a black agenda, shaping black opinion and calling attention to the state of the nation's racial affairs."

~~Richard Fausset, "L.A. Times"~~~

"That's why I love the blog "Field Negro" so much. Field, as he's known to his fans, has the sense of reality that it takes to call out the (CowPuckey) of blame beating by those who are in positions of power and their lackeys. Because of his handle and his unabashed way of writing about racial issues, Field is often cited as a "Black blogger." What he is, however, is a first-class detector of blame deflection and an excellent student of history. If you want to write about the past and future of repression there's really no other perspective to take - which is why everyone should read Field."

"Half a century after Little Rock, the Montgomery bus boycott and the tumultuous dawn of the modern civil rights era, the new face of the movement is Facebook, MySpace and some 150 black blogs united in an Internet alliance they call theAfroSpear.

Older, familiar leaders such as Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton and NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, are under challenge by a younger generation of bloggers known by such provocative screen names as Field Negro, thefreeslaveand African American Political Pundit. And many of the newest struggles are being waged online."~Howard Witt-The Chicago Tribune~

"I had no idea, for example, of the extent of the African-American blogging world out there and its collective powers of dissemination.But now, after reading thousands of anguished, thoughtful comments posted on these blogs reflecting on issues of persistent racial discrimination in the nation's schools and courtrooms, what's clear to me is that there's a new, "virtual" civil rights movement out there on the Internet that can reach more people in a few hours than all the protest marches, sit-ins and boycotts of the 1950s and 60s put together." ~Chicago Tribune Reporter, Howard Witt~